Ramblings, Observations and Misconceptions

Menu

The Fluoride Coverup

There is undeniable evidence that both the U.S. Government, and the U.S. Aluminum and related manufacturing industries have been attempting, since the 1940s, and more recently, the U.S. Dental industry, to cover up data about the potentially harmful effects of fluoride.

This article is an attempt to answer the following questions:

Is there evidence of a coverup to hide potential dangers of fluoride from the public?

If there is a coverup, what is the motive?

This document is not intended to directly address the following questions, although it does touch on some of these topics tangentially.

Is fluoride effective at preventing tooth decay?

Is fluoride safe?

Fluoride made its first big splash in the public arena in the U.S. during World War II as the war effort ramped up production of many products that used fluoride in their manufacture. Such products included steel, aluminum, various chemicals, such as fertilizers, and, the atomic bomb. Companies involved in these manufacturing processes were becoming increasingly concerned by the effects of fluoride on its workers and the public near its plants, as fluoride was released, primarily in the form of gas from smoke stacks, and was being breathed by thousands of people.

Already by the early 1950s, but continuing heavily into the 1980s, many lawsuits were brought against industry and the U.S. government for fluoride-related pollution and health problems. In 1983, Dr. Leonard Weistein of Cornell University said that “certainly, there has been more litigation on alleged damage to agriculture by fluoride than all other pollutants combined.”1

At this time, fluoride was considered the worst industrial pollutant in history, and had lead to many lawsuits against industry.

And as early as 1969 an article published in The Peninsula Observer, said “fluoride was responsible for more damage claims against industry than all twenty of the [other nationally monitored air pollutants] combined.”2 The next year, a report by the USDA said that “airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant.”1

One stated goal of these companies, often working together, in sometimes formal coalitions, such as the Fluorine Lawyers Committee3, was to find evidence that fluoride was not causing health problems, or the worst of the health problems. In many cases, the organizations funding the research were instructing researchers to hide or understate evidence of fluoride’s dangers. In the 1990s, an investigation by the Clinton administration, looking into allegations of involuntary medical experiments on humans during WWII, found a memo from the Atomic Energy Commission to researchers investigating fluoride, that stated:

â€œInformation which would invite or tend to encourage claims against the Atomic Energy Commission or its contractor such portions of articles to be published should be reworded or deleted.â€4

The very first suggestion that drinking water ought to be fluoridated was made by Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute, after being asked by ALCOA (Aluminum Company of America) to investigate any dental connection to fluoride.5 Industry, increasingly interested in painting a pretty face on the fluoride problem, fell behind support for the idea of using fluoride to combat tooth decay, and water fluoridation.

Although the evidence that fluoride helped teeth was not particularly strong, a concerted effort was made to make it look as though it did by many of the parties involved. An early study, published in the 1948 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, which was “based on work performed … for the Manhattan Project” reported that Manhattan Project workers exposed to fluoride had fewer cavities than workers unexposed to fluoride. Later, a secret, uncensored version of the report was found, which reveald that most of the men in the study had few or no teeth!6

Many of the key players, both personnel, and organizations, involved in the early fluoride research also have tainted track records. Two examples (there are many others):

Harold Hodge, the head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology for the Manhattan Project, who was one of the early proponents of water fluoridation, claiming it was absolutely safe, was responsible for many experiments during the cold war, which involved injecting unsuspecting patients with uranium and plutonium.7

The Mellon Institute, which made the original suggestion for public water fluoridation, had also defended asbestos for decades before it was finally removed from insullation.8,9

Since then, other studies have been burried or obscured by proponents of fluoridation. Two notable examples:

In 1994, Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D. of the Forsyth Institute completed research on lab rats that showed that fluoride, at the levels roughly equivalent to those permitted in public water fluoridation programs, was a potent neurotoxin. Four days after her study was accepted for publishing by the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology, she was fired from Forsyth.10,11

Elise Bassin’s 2001 PhD dissertation at Harvard showed that boys under the age of 20 who drank fluoridated water had an increased risk of osteosarcoma, a relatively rare bone cancer that typically occurs in boys, and is often fatal.12,13 However, Chester Douglass, Bassin’s supervising professor, and consultant to Colgate, claims that her findings are invalid, and has been investigated by U.S. federal investigators from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.14,15

Whatever the full and true story of fluoride, it is quite apparent that powerful forces do not want fluoride to get any negative press! And the reasons appear to be, quite simply, money. By convincing the public that fluoride is good for our teeth, industry has been able to reduce litigation, avoid strict environmental regulations, and has a place to sell some of their otherwise “toxic waste”–to municipalities!

And now that the ADA and other health agencies have been promoting water fluoridation for so long, there’s a big ego factor at play. To reverse course now would mean to admit to having duped the public for over 60 years!

So to answer the questions posed at the outset of this article:

Has there been a coverup of the effects of fluoride? YES!

What is th emotive? Money. Reduction in litigation, reduction in strict environmental standards. And now, the health industry’s motivation could well be saving face.

For a more in-depth look at these issues, I highly recommend the book The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson. It is an excellent in-depth investigative report, the result of a decade of research, covering over 5 decades of deception by government and industry on the topic of fluoridation. Half of the book is references!

If you’re like 99.9% of the people reading this, you have absolutely no interest in reading a book on this topic. For you, I highly recommend this 28-minute video. It is a documentary interview with the author of the book, and presents the main findings in a concise manner, that will not be boring!